The defense of allowing crossdressers and transsexuals into restrooms that do not match their sex has become quite ludicrous.

The initial defense against those who dared to question why women should share bathrooms with men and vice-versa was that it was absurd to believe that perverts would exploit this arrangement to gain access to the opposite sex in their moments of privacy.

Now that the floodgates are open and there have been numerous instances of perverts doing exactly that, the defense by liberals has changed.

Now, the left has landed on a defense that roughly resembles: “Okay, perverts will watch you shower and pee. But you really need to get over that…”

Yes, those who dare to object to having leering perverts in their restrooms and locker rooms are now thought of as prudish whiners.

“This is what the Obama administration nudged the rest of the country toward Friday,” the editorial states. “Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms — and vice versa — might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort — with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage — then realizing it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined.”

The same editorial which admits that women are going to have to endure “male genitalia” around them as they use the facilities also claimed that the argument that women and children will be less safe with such arrangements is “political fiction” furthered by hysterical Republicans.

“Those safety issues are political fiction — non-transgender men wouldn’t have been allowed in women’s bathrooms under the Charlotte ordinance that HB 2 killed, and the 200 or so cities with similar ordinances have had no incidents involving bathroom predators,” the editorial states.

So, in essence, if a man flashes your eight-year-old daughter on the street, he’s a vile predator. If he does it in a Target bathroom, he’s just courageously expressing himself and your daughter is a bigoted Neanderthal if she has a problem with it.

Further, the editorial claims that “non-transgender men wouldn’t have been allowed in women’s bathrooms under the Charlotte ordinance.” That’s only true if they claimed to be men. If Bill from down the street said that he identified as a woman that day, then he would be allowed in women’s facilities even if he had a beard and identified as male the day before.

Because, you know, gender is “fluid” and only knuckle-draggers subscribe to the gender binary that was the norm for thousands of years up until last month.

About the Author

An unapologetic patriot and conservative, Greg emerged within the blossoming Tea Party Movement as a political analyst dedicated to educating and advocating for the preservation of our constitutional principles and a free-market solution to problems birthed by economic liberalism. From authoring scathing commentaries to conducting interviews with some of the biggest names in politics today including party leaders, activists and conservative media personalities, Greg has worked to counter the left’s media narratives with truthful discussions of the biggest issues affecting Americans today.
Greg’s primary area of focus is Second Amendment issues and the advancement of honest discussion concerning the constitutional right that protects all others. He lives in the Northwest with his wife, Heather, and enjoys writing, marksmanship and the outdoors.